alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 2023

Day

Shasta 

Inflow

C.F.S.

1

Prev Day

F.C. Par

(Col. 3)

X .95

2

F.C

Param

(Cols. 1+2)

3

.0356*

X Days

12/23 Thru

3/20

4

530,000

Minus

F.C.

Param

(Col 3)

5

Cols

4x5

6

F.C.

Reserv

(1,300,000 - 

Col 6)

7

Minus 

14,943

Per Day

After

3/20

8

Adjusted

F.C.

Reserv

(7-8)

Perm

Storage

98,334

1 10,958 93,417 104,375 0.3204 420,000 134,568 1,165,432 3,387,000

2 6,266 99,157 105,423 0.3560 420,000 149,520 1,150,480 3,402,000

3 4,848 100,151 104,999 0.3916 420,000 164,472 1,135,528 3,416,000

4 7,409 99,749 107,158 0.4272 420,000 179,424 1,120,576 3,431,000

5 23,186 101,801 124,987 0.4628 405,014 187,440 1,112,560 3,439,000

6 19,844 118,737 138,581 0.4984 391,419 195,083 1,104,917 3,447,000

7 25,824 131,652 157,476 0.5340 372,524 198,928 1,101,072 3,451,000

8 38,931 149,602 188,533 0.5696 341,467 194,499 1,105,501 3,446,000

9 45,756 179,107 224,863 0.6052 305,137 184,669 1,115,331 3,437,000

10 34,559 213,620 248,179 0.6408 281,822 180,591 1,119,409 3,433,000

11 35,392 235,770 271,162 0.6764 258,838 175,078 1,124,922 3,427,000

12 37,755 257,604 295,359 0.7120 234,642 167,065 1,132,935 3,419,000

13 35,107 280,591 315,698 0.7476 214,302 160,212 1,139,788 3,412,000

14 49,972 299,913 349,885 0.7832 180,115 141,066 1,158,934 3,393,000

15 37,590 332,391 369,981 0.8188 160,020 131,024 1,168,976 3,383,000

16 25,871 351,482 377,353 0.8544 152,648 130,422 1,169,578 3,382,000

17 19,188 358,485 377,673 0.8900 152,327 135,571 1,164,429 3,388,000

18 15,052 358,789 373,841 0.9256 156,159 144,540 1,155,460 3,397,000

19 9,708 355,149 364,857 0.9612 165,143 158,735 1,141,265 3,411,000

20 9,059 346,614 355,673 0.9968 174,327 173,769 1,126,231 3,426,000

21 7,748 337,890 345,638 1.0324 184,362 190,336 1,109,664 3,442,000

22 9,079 328,356 337,435 1.0680 192,565 205,660 1,094,340 3,458,000

23 8,010 320,563 328,573 1.1036 201,427 222,295 1,077,705 3,474,000

24 8,001 312,144 320,145 1.1392 209,855 239,066 1,060,934 3,491,000

25 6,898 304,138 311,036 1.1748 218,964 257,239 1,042,761 3,509,000

26 6,145 295,484 301,629 1.2104 228,371 276,420 1,023,580 3,528,000

27 6,603 286,548 293,151 1.2460 236,849 295,114 1,004,886 3,547,000

28 5,402 278,493 283,895 1.2816 246,105 315,408 984,592 3,567,000

29 6,302 269,700 276,002 1.3172 253,998 334,566 965,434 3,587,000

30 7,535 262,202 269,737 1.3528 260,263 352,083 947,917 3,604,000

31 3,618 256,250 259,868 1.3884 270,132 375,051 924,949 3,627,000

Comments: 

* LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) ) 

IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lake Shasta Flood Control Requirements

Run Date: 4/19/2023
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

March 2012

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Dail

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Mar-12 0000 0 0 831 299 0000 0 0 0 0 725 

2-Mar-12 9 46 4 5 13 51 844 350 0000 0000 1,385 

3-Mar-12 0008 0 8 844 358 0000 0000 1,332 

4-Mar-12 17 17 0 0 17 17 861 375 0000 0000 1,504 

5-Mar-12 0 55 0 0 0 55 861 430 0000 0 0 0 0 844 

6-Mar-12 38 203 0 0 38 203 899 633 0000 0000 1,476 

7-Mar-12 34 236 3 0 37 236 936 869 0000 0000 1,476 

8-Mar-12 17 34 0 0 17 34 953 903 0000 0000 1,476 

9-Mar-12 0 35 0 7 0 42 953 945 0000 0000 1,195 

10-Mar-12 0 91 0 17 0 108 953 1,053 0003 0303 1,101 

11-Mar-12 0 54 0 14 0 68 953 1,121 0000 0003 1,055 

12-Mar-12 0 0 3 25 3 25 956 1,146 0000 0003 1,101 

13-Mar-12 0 13 0 6 0 19 956 1,165 0403 0 7 0 10 375 

14-Mar-12 0047 4 7 960 1,172 0000 0 0 0 10 375 15-Mar-12 0009 0 9 960 1,181 0000 0 0 0 10 375 16-Mar-12 0008 0 8 960 1,189 0003 0 3 0 13 375 17-Mar-12 0 0 0 13 0 13 960 1,202 0003 0 3 0 16 452 18-Mar-12 0 0 0 38 0 38 960 1,240 0003 0 3 0 19 1,101 19-Mar-12 0 0 5 35 5 35 965 1,275 0001 0 1 0 20 1,476 20-Mar-12 0 77 0 3 0 80 965 1,355 0000 0 0 0 20 2,198 21-Mar-12 18 55 0 41 18 96 983 1,451 0003 0 3 0 23 2,202 22-Mar-12 0 0 6 18 6 18 989 1,469 0000 0 0 0 23 1,658 23-Mar-12 0 38 4 13 4 51 993 1,520 0 17 0 11 0 28 0 51 1,195 

Banks T

24-Mar-12 18 36 0 13 18 49 1,011 1,569 0006 0 6 0 57 1,101 

25-Mar-12 0066 6 6 1,017 1,575 0003 0 3 0 60 375 

26-Mar-12 0008 0 8 1,017 1,583 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 70 375 

27-Mar-12 0402 0 6 1,017 1,589 0 17 0 15 0 32 0 102 1,097 

28-Mar-12 0043 4 3 1,021 1,592 0009 0 9 0 111 2,202 

29-Mar-12 0 18 4 7 4 25 1,025 1,617 0 9 0 10 0 19 0 130 3,331 

30-Mar-12 0 35 0 8 0 43 1,025 1,660 0 83 0 7 0 90 0 220 5,260 

31-Mar-12 51 264 0 0 51 264 1,076 1,924 17 387 0 0 17 387 17 607 5,110 

Total 202 1,311 43 314 245 1,625 1,076 1,924 17 517 0 90 17 607 17 607 45,305 

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                         OWNED BY AND NAME
INCORPORATION                PERCENTAGE OWNED                       JURISDICTION
-------------                ----------------                       ------------
<S>                          <C>                                    <C>
SUBSIDIARIES

VS Holdings, Inc.            Talon Automotive Group, Inc. (100%)    Michigan
corporation

Veltri Holdings USA, Inc.    Talon Automotive Group, Inc. (100%)    Indiana
corporation

Veltri Metal Products Co.    VS Holdings, Inc. (100%)               Nova Scotia
unlimited liability company
</TABLE>


AFFILIATES

None
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                         124,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,138,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                   170,041
<INVENTORY>                                  7,054,632
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,519,529
<PP&E>                                      28,124,979
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,286,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,837,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,973,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,673
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,185,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,837,266
<SALES>                                     42,358,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,358,636
<CGS>                                       38,383,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,490,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,923,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,041,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (540,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,501,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,501,137)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4281 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the inclusion 

of social security numbers of donors in charitable contribution substantiation acknowledgements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2015 

Mr. ROTHFUS (for himself and Mr. HIGGINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

the inclusion of social security numbers of donors in 

charitable contribution substantiation acknowledgements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Charitable Giving Pri5 vacy Protection Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4281 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

2 NUMBERS OF DONORS IN CHARITABLE CON3 TRIBUTION SUBSTANTIATION ACKNOWL4 EDGEMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(f)(8) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating sub7 paragraph (E) as subparagraph (F) and by inserting after 

8 subparagraph (D) the following: 

9 ‘‘(E) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING OR AC10 CEPTING COLLECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

11 NUMBERS.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

13 this paragraph, the Secretary may not re14 quire or accept social security numbers of 

15 donors from donee organizations. 

16 ‘‘(ii) USE OF ALTERNATIVE NUM17 BER.—The Secretary may require the use 

18 of an identifier other than a social security 

19 number for purposes of this paragraph.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Lera Realty Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Abraham J. Rich, Appellant.

In a summary proceeding to recover possession of a store, based upon an alleged holding over by the tenant after the expiration of a written lease, tenant appeals from an order of the City Court of Mount Vernon striking the proceeding from (he jury calendar and restoring the same to the trial calendar for trial without a jury. The lease contained a clause waiving the tenant’s right to a trial by jury “ in any summary proceedings hereafter instituted by the Landlord against the Tenant in respect to the demised premises * * As a defense in the proceeding, and in opposition to the instant motion, the tenant alleged that it was in possession under a new oral lease which was made during the term, of the written lease, to take effect upon its expiration, and which was silent on the subject of waiving a jury trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The summary proceeding was based upon the written lease and the landlord had the right to invoke the jury-waiver clause contained therein. It could not be deprived of that right by the tenant’s interposition of a plea alleging that he was in possession under a new lease. *(Berdwm Holding Corp.*V. *Licberuan,*21 N. Y. S. 2d 626 [not officially published].) As was said in *O’Beirne*v. *Bullís*(158 N. Y. 466, 469): “The mode of trial was to be determined by the cause of action set up in the complaint.” Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.140


                              MEGO FINANCIAL CORP.
                       1125 N.E. 125th Street, Suite 206
                            N. Miami, Florida 33161


                                 June 26, 1998


Mego Mortgage Corporation
1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30339


Gentlemen:

        In consideration of the payment by Mego Mortgage Corporation ("Mego
Mortgage") to Preferred Equities Corporation ("PEC", the wholly owned subsidiary
of Mego Financial Corp. ("Mego Financial"), of $1,574,009.50, which amount
represents fees for services rendered by PEC and costs and expenses billed
through June 30, 1998 under (i) the Loan Program Subservicing Agreement, dated
as of September 1, 1996, as amended, between PEC and Mego Mortgage and (ii) the
Services and Consulting Agreement, dated as of September 1, 1996, as amended,
between PEC and Mego Mortgage, Mego Financial Corp. ("Mego Financial") hereby
agrees that no further amounts are owed to it by Mego Mortgage under the (i) the
Tax Allocation and Indemnity Agreement, dated November 19, 1996, between Mego
Financial and Mego Mortgage (the "Tax Agreement"), (ii) the Payment Agreement,
dated as of August 29, 1997, between Mego Mortgage and Mego Financial (the
"Payment Agreement") and (iii) the Agreement dated April 9, 1998, between Mego
Mortgage and Mego Financial (the "April Agreement," and together with the Tax
Agreement and the Payment Agreement, the "Mego Agreements") and hereby releases
Mego Mortgage from any right, claim or action Mego Financial now has or may have
in the future arising out of or in connection with the Mego Agreements.

        Similarly, in consideration of the release granted herein by Mego
Financial, by Mego Mortgage's execution of this letter, Mego Mortgage hereby
releases Mego Financial from any right, claim or action Mego Mortgage now has
or may have in the future arising out of or in connection with the Mego
Agreements.


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        MEGO FINANCIAL CORP.


                                        By: /s/ JEROME J. COHEN
                                            --------------------------
                                            Jerome J. Cohen, President


Agreed to and accepted
this __ day of June 1998


MEGO MORTGAGE CORPORATION


By: 
    ------------------------
    Name:
    Title:
###### Editorial Note on Part 71

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 71 appear by T.D. ATF-414, 64 FR 49084, Sept. 10, 1999and T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42734, 42735, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 71.98 Separation of functions.

Administrative law judges shall perform no duties inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as such. Administrative law judges may be assigned duties not inconsistent with the performance of their functions as administrative law judges. Save to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as required by law, no administrative law judge shall consult any person or party as to any fact in issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. The functions of the administrative law judge shall be entirely separated from the general investigative functions of the agency. No officer, employee, or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in any proceeding shall, in that or a factually related proceeding, participate or advise in the administrative law judge's or Administrator's decision, or in the agency review on appeal, except as a witness or counsel in the proceedings. The administrative law judge may not informally obtain advice or opinions from the parties or their counsel, or from any officer or employee of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, as to the facts or the weight or interpretation to be given to the evidence. He may, however, informally obtain advice on matters of law from officers or employees who were not engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in that or a factually related proceeding. This limitation does not apply to the Administrator, and the administrative law judge may, at any time, consult with and obtain instructions from him on questions of law and policy.

[21 FR 1441, Mar. 6, 1956. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 43 FR 13531, Mar. 31, 1978; 44 FR 55846, Sept. 28, 1979]
No. 11,572.

#### United States Mining Corporation *v.*Goble.

Decided June 13, 1927.

Action on account. Judgment for plaintiff.

*Affirmed.*

1. Appeal and *Error*— Deficient *Record.*An assignment of error that there is no proof to sustain a court finding will be overruled where a deposition read in evidence was not incorporated in the record nor transmitted to the reviewing court.

2. *Eratjd*— Statute *of.*A promise to a debtor to pay his debt in consideration of the conveyance of property to the promisor is not within the statute of frauds.

*Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. George F. Dunklee, Judge.*

*60Mr. Charles A. Murray, Messrs. Garwood & Garwood, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank L. Ross, for defendant in error.

*Department One.*

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

Dependant in error was plaintiff below and had judgment against the United States Mining Corporation in an action which it claimed was upon an account stated. We assume that to be the case.

The account was mostly for goods sold to defendant, and upon that part of it no question is raised. A small part of it, however, was for goods sold the Gold Mining Company, another and older corporation, payment for which goods it is claimed the defendant assumed. The defendant, however, says that there is no proof of the authority of Condit, its president, to assume such a debt; that the projmise was to pay the debt of another and so within the statute of frauds; and that no consideration therefor is shown.

It appears from the record that the deposition of one Garrett was read in evidence, and that deposition is not in the record nor is it transmitted to this court. We cannot, therefore, say that the court was wrong in holding that Condit had sufficient authority, and that there was consideration for the promise he made for the defendant.

As to the statute of frauds: If in consideration of the conveyance by the Gold Mining Company of a large amount of its property to the defendant, the defendant, as plaintiff claims, promised *that company*that it would pay its debts, there was a consideration and such promise was not within the statute of frauds *(Burson v. Bogart,*49 Colo. 410, 113 Pac. 516; *Enos v. Anderson,*40 *61Colo. 395, 93 Pac. 475, 15 L. R A. [N. S.] 1087), and, since the deposition of Grarrett is not here, we cannot say that the evidence does not show that such was the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Burke, Mr. Justice Whitford and Mr. Justice Sheafor concur.
#### Janet TASHER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 2006-3146.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 22, 2006.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 2006 WL 2266264.

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4240 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4240

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2016

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require an independent review of the operation and administration of 
   the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) maintained by the Federal 
    Bureau of Investigation and subsets of the TSDB, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Fly for Foreign Fighters Act''.

SEC. 2. GAO STUDY ON THE TERRORIST SCREENING DATABASE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
a study and submit, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, a 
report on--
            (1) whether past weaknesses in the operation and 
        administration of the Terrorist Screening Database (hereinafter 
        referred to as the ``TSDB'') and subsets of the TSDB have been 
        addressed; and
            (2) the extent to which existing vulnerabilities to the 
        United States may be addressed or mitigated through additional 
        changes to the TSDB and subsets of the TSDB, thereby enhancing 
        America's security and defenses.
    (b) Required Information.--The study and report under subsection 
(a) shall include information on the extent to which--
            (1) information is being integrated into the TSDB from all 
        relevant sources across the government in a timely manner;
            (2) agencies are able to comply with increased demands for 
        information to improve the TSDB;
            (3) the TSDB, and relevant subsets of the TSDB, are 
        accessible to agencies, authorities, and other entities, as 
        appropriate; and
            (4) the TSDB is capable of enabling users to identify known 
        or suspected terrorists in the most timely and comprehensive 
        manner possible.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Marcella Weil v. People's Surety Company.

See memorandum per curiam. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

INTERNATIONAL STEM CELL CORPORATION 

PROMISSORY NOTE 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (“Amendment”), dated November 12, 2018, is entered into by
International Stem Cell Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 5950 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (the “Borrower”) and Andrey Semechkin or his assigns (the “Noteholder”); 

WHEREAS, Borrower and Noteholder are parties to that certain Promissory Note, dated as of August 8, 2018 (the
“Promissory Note”); and 
 WHEREAS, Borrower and Noteholder desire to amend the Promissory Note; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by each party hereto as follows: 
 1. Maturity Date specified in the
Promissory Note Section 2.1 (“Final Payment Date”) as November 1, 2018 shall be extended to January 15, 2019. 

2. Except as expressly amended and modified by this Amendment, the Promissory Note is and shall continue to be in full force
and effect in accordance with the terms thereof. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Noteholder have executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	BORROWER	 		  	NOTEHOLDER
			
	International Stem Cell Corporation	 		  	Andrey Semechkin
					
	 /s/ Sophia Garnette
	 	November 12, 2018	 		  	/s/ Andrey Semechkin	 	November 12, 2018
	 Signature
	 	DATE	 		  	 Signature
	 	DATE
					
	 Sophia D. Garnette
	 		 		  		 	
	 VP Legal Affairs & Operations
	 		 		  		 	


  
 Page 1 of 1